Lakers,
<< Engineer wrote a post to you over there explaining the various factors affecting the data speed. You can dig that up and read it one more time. >>
Do you mean the one that begins:
BORE me on your long tirade on how you want ONE number for something which can't be answered that way.
In all due deference to that well respected wireless pioneer, I do not need to refer to that particular post to understand the factors that affect data speeds in a wireless environment. I learned that in classroom and on the job while assisting (well, looking the shoulders of <g>) my own very well educated and experienced engineers commercially launch wireless systems (with data albeit circuit-switched) several years before cdma ever commercially did data, and as a matter of fact, well before IS-95 launched here in the States. It was as you recall, LOA, relative to what Qualcomm "promised" in writing in New Orleans in early 1995.
For what engineer would like to call a layman, the Mckinsey slide(s) I referenced in that exchange not only dealt with the factors that engineer touched on but several others (but not all) that affect packet data rates in a mobile environment.
The Qualcomm data supplied in that slide also allowed anyone of us on these threads to calculate a (theoretical) average throughput, which somebody (other than me) had brought up in regard to why DoCoMo was not blowing their horn about data rates.
You may recall my response to engineer where I said something not too different than what you are saying in your post here:
The issue here, becomes how expectations are set - vendor to carrier - carrier to customer - industry to analysts - analysts to investors. This issue impacts on those of us who invest in wireless ... because not every investor is privy to your industry knowledge. This of course leads to a reaction, and of late a negative one, that 3G has been hyped out of proportion to its capabilities. It is like duh ... 1xEV-DV doesn't really deliver 2.4 Mbps and duh ... it's really going to cost more than 2 pence to download a U2 tune. Wireless data takeup is of course potentially also impacted, if expectations are set for consumers, that are not met, and this in turn affects the value of our Qualcomm investment going forward.
<< On the other hand the reasons we have almost never seen any operators blowing that 600kbps horn are ... 1) ... 2) ... 3) >>
Then why the hell is it in Qualcomm's whitepaper and used to get to cost per megabyte?
<< I answered with 624, purely out of the standard. >>
You still haven't given me references of version, section, and page.
If you have I could had it interpreted by one of my former instructors who I golfed with this afternoon, so I didn't act like a total sales dummy (which I of course am).
Sheesh, did YOU author that Qualcomm "Expectations" whitepaper? <g>
Seriously, one of the reasons, I asked you what rev of the standard you were looking at is this statement that CDG posted on their web site immediately after IS-2000A was formally accepted by the ITU as an IMT-2000 standard (which coincidentally is when CDG stopped calling 1xRTT an "interim step to 3G") in a somewhat Orwellian manuever:
"The second release of 1X is being worked on in the TIA and will support faster data speeds with peak rates up to 614 KBPS."
I am wondering if this was an item that was not fully fleshed out in the standard as it was published, another reason that one of these days I'll take a peak at it, if the spirit moves me.
<< 3) 1x operators are playing a very low profile in the whole 1x rollout >>
They ought to be. Contrary to Qualcomm & CDG hype they didn't "commercially launch" till this year according to the Korean press. They may have had a few FU's floating around, and even a handful of subscribers initially using some of those MSM5000 based SKY IM-2300's from SKT's subsidiary, but without the worlds attention focused on them, they were very smart to keep a low profile. They are just now starting to get some attention focused, and if you get beyond Minister Yang's hype, it is not all positive (which is to be expected), but I suspect would have been less positive back in December or January.
<< From the recent report out of Korea, the avg throughput they experienced are actually pretty good don't you think? >>
It absolutely is. I think I said that in introducing the article describing the test results when I posted it to this thread.
They are also pretty close to what I conjectured they would be in exchamges with Chaz, and Ben here on this thread.
Ironically, the results they published pinned down a number that engineer said:
"cannot be pinned down to one number."
<< Unlike their GPRS counterparts, which coming out with that theoretical 170 kbps to hype things up, >>
Well, I'll tell you what. Any carriers that let their marketing guys use that theoretical 170 kbps (if any ... and few have) ought to fire the marketing guys.
The 170 kbps got picked up primarily by the "journalists", and I use that word loosely ,,, or uselessly.
170 kbps refers not only to the use of all 8 time slots, which someday when technology permits might be used in "devices' but not handsets, but also refers to a coding scheme that will probably never be implemented because GSM-EDGE has completed standardization, and it would be more sensible and probably more cost-effective to use EDGE than GPRS with CS-4.
Remember EDGE - which was almost totally ignored in that Ovum Qualcomm whitepaper and also the Qualcomm Mobile data whitepaper - you know, that technology that does not need 5 MHz carrier that Dr. Jacobs says (most recently quoted as saying at CTIA in New Orleans - maybe he had just read the Nokia GSM-800 whitepaper) "I don't think EDGE will see the light of day, ... I don't see there being an economic opportunity for EDGE,"
No wonder Nokia put a "Marketing Misconceptions" section in their GSM-800 whitepaper directed at TDMA carriers.
Speaking of engineer, limtex is still waiting for a response to the same question he posed twice to that individual, and speaking of that did Ben find you yet?
<< Engineer wrote a post to you ... You can dig that up and read it one more time. >>
I have read it enough. If others would like to read it
here is my post to which engineer responded:
Message 15903579
... and here is engineer's response:
Message 15908831
Which reminds me, just stumbled upon a classic post about the September release of 1xRTT handsets supporting AOD/VOD by Samsung:
siliconinvestor.com
Talk about late.
This ones been "released" so many times I have lost count.
... but after all its 3G (but not with a MSM5000, it ain't).
... and GPRS is 2.5G.
Best,
- Eric - |
